The Supreme Court has sided with a Wyoming property owner in a dispute over a bicycle trail that follows the route of an abandoned railroad. The decision could force the government to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate landowners.

The justices ruled 8-1 Monday that property owner Marvin Brandt remains the owner of a 200-foot-wide trail that crosses his 83-acre parcel in southern Wyoming's Medicine Bow National Forest. The trail once was the path of a railroad and is among thousands of miles of abandoned railroads that have been converted to recreational trails.

“The only way now, the trails on the tracks in Nebraska could go away is if they were reactivated as active railroad rights-of-way,” he said.

Omaha’s first rail trial is the Field Club Trial. It was built in 1885 as part of the Omaha Belt Line, a railroad track that circumnavigated the city. In the 1960s, the railroad stopped using the tracks. Then in the 1980s, they completely abandon them and later the city turned them into a trial.

“It is neat because you are right in the habitat among the trees and all your natural surroundings,” said Doug Eckrich, who uses the trail.

The Field Club trail is owned and operated by Omaha Parks and Recreation. While the track was abandoned, Greathouse said it's unlikely to be the center of a land dispute.

“If that property was not obtained illegally, it's only fair it goes back, but it will be a shame,” Eckrich said.

Many Nebraska trails could eventually close, but not because of the Supreme Court ruling or similar land disputes. Greathouse said most Nebraska trails are rail banked, meaning they're built on rail beds still zoned for trains.

Even the Platte River bike trial bridge is still up to code if the railroad wants it.

"This railroad was never abandon. It is still a railroad right-of-way and can be used at any time by an active railroad,” Greathouse said.

The Nebraska Games and Parks Commission did not want to do an on-camera interview for this story. In an emailed response, the commission says, “We cannot, at this time, determine what those legal ramifications may be,” in regards to the Supreme Court ruling.